Laurie Hawn

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

The manipulation of the motion. It is easy to manipulate people's emotions. It is more difficult to do the right thing with all the facts.

It is difficult to have the integrity and honesty to do it when I am taking money out of my own pocket, but that is what I am doing.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure which time my hon. colleague is talking about. Let me say that the pension that I paid into for 31 years for pension purposes I received at age 47, which I was very grateful for. It was a full pension, even though I had only paid for part of it. I am still collecting that pension. It allowed me to retire at age 47 and get on with other things, which I did, 12 years in the financial services business and then the first of what hopefully will be several years in this place.

I am not sure what political manipulation my hon. friend is talking about, but he and I will discuss it afterwards.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am a member of two of the three organizations the member mentioned. One of the problems here is that for a lot of people, including the vets, the legion and the Air Force Association, the situation becomes so muddy. There is so much misinformation and the mixing of emotional arguments. It is everyone's desire to do the right thing for veterans, but some of the simple facts have not been laid out in a pure unemotional way.

The simple fact is that in 1966 my contributions to my Canadian Forces superannuation went down by the amount that my Canada pension plan contributions kicked in. It has been that way ever since.

Would I like to get more? Sure. Is the country prepared to spend $20 billion, $40 billion? I do not know what the number is for sure. We have received numbers back from the Library of Parliament that are extraordinarily high.

It is not up to General MacKenzie or the other organizations that the member mentioned, all of whom I have tremendous respect for. I have friends in those organizations. It is up to the Government of Canada to do the right thing by the Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans and so on. It is also up to us to make sure that we are doing it with the facts and honestly.

I would be happy to debate the issue further.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to address the motion put forward by my hon. friend, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. My perspective is a bit different having served for 30 years, and I was honoured and proud to have done that. I have been treated extremely well during and since my service. I am honoured and proud to serve here.

The men and women of the Canadian Forces deserve our gratitude and respect both while serving and in retirement. I would like to address, though, the last section of the motion, most elements of which I can support except the last portion which urges the government to eliminate the deduction from annuity for retired and disabled CF members. It is an inaccurate statement. We need to be very clear about what government benefits are for our men and women in uniform.

If one reads the motion the way it is worded, one would think that the government is wilfully taking money away from our soldiers, taking money right out of their pockets. We all know that this government would never consider such an idea, nor would any reasonable government.

In fact, if we were to ask Canadians to look at the track record of the government in just the nine months since it has taken office, I am sure all Canadians would agree that this government is doing a lot for our military. I will cite some examples, starting with budget 2006.

Our government provided our forces with an additional $5.3 billion over five years, so that they can carry out their important role in Canada and abroad.

This government has also announced plans to purchase four major procurement items for our military: joint support ships, medium to heavy lift helicopters, strategic and tactical airlift, medium size logistic trucks, and there is more to come.

We have also taken additional measures—including sending armoured recovery vehicles, engineering vehicles and counter-mortar equipment, which includes a radar system to locate enemy weapons, in order for our troops to have what they need in Afghanistan to carry out their mission.

I think it is obvious that the government stands squarely behind our forces. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and airwomen contribute so much for our country and we cannot thank them enough for the daily sacrifices they make for their courage and dedication.

We owe it to them to ensure that they are well accommodated when it comes to retirement and beyond. We need to look after them. We are not, as the motion would suggest, deducting anything from them. This is simply false.

I would like to clarify for members of the House and for Canadians how we look after our dedicated men and women in the military through their pensions. Upon retirement from the military Canadian Forces members receive a full pension under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and then, once they reach 65, they receive a pension from two sources: the CFSA and Canada pension plan.

The pension benefits of the CFSA and CPP have been integrated and that happened in 1966, and I was there. This has been the case since the introduction of CPP of course 40 years ago. Payments to CFSA at that time were reduced by the amounts of the new CPP. I was an 18-year-old going through pilot training at the time.

How are these two plans joined together? They are linked by something called a bridge benefit. Once retired the former Canadian Forces members will receive a bridge benefit from the government until they reach age 65. This additional bridge benefit and CPP retirement pension that they will get when they are 65 are similar in amounts. There are exceptions to this if someone takes CPP early but those are the exceptions.

In my own case, retiring at 47, it meant that from age 47 to age 65 I was collecting a full Canadian Forces superannuation even though I have only paid for part of it. In effect, the pension amount the retirees receive is the same both before and after they reach 65.

We do this so that the income for our retired military is stable throughout the entire retirement period. We do this because we recognize that a military member can retire much earlier than 65. In my own case, 47. We do this because we care.

Let me give an example. Some of our military personnel joined the military as early as age 16, in my case 17. That means that by the age of 36 after 20 years of service to this country they are eligible to retire on a pension of 40%.

Our plan for them is to ensure they receive the same pension for the rest of their life or until they are 102 years old, if they live that long.

Our plan ensures that if they have a child to put through school or university, or an unforeseen expense, they can have a predictable level of income throughout their lives. In the great majority of cases, the total monthly pension income for a CF annuitant is similar in amount whether it be before turning 65 or after.

In some cases, if a retired soldier continues to make CPP contributions after leaving the military, the amount of his or her retirement pension would be even more than the amount of his or her bridge benefit. In other words, total pension income after age 65 will be higher than before reaching age 65. From time to time there is a situation when a member will see a reduction after age 65, and this is where there has been some confusion in the past.

We need to be clear to our veterans and Canadian Forces retirees why this can happen. As I mentioned, there will be a reduction in pension earnings after 65 when retirees have elected to receive early CPP benefits, which they are eligible to receive at age 60. This reduction in total pension income happens only because Canadian Forces members have chosen to take this route.

Our military pension plan does not, by any means, deduct anything from our Canadian Forces members that is rightfully theirs. They have paid into their pension plans and they will get their benefits from it. This is very different from what the motion before us would suggest. Canadians can be proud of the pension plan that we have for our military.

The CFSA is an excellent pension plan for our forces. In addition to the pension, or the bridge benefit, the CFSA also has generous early retirement provisions, benefits that are payable to survivors, and a full cost of living indexing feature. It is a program that is designed to provide generous benefits to which members have paid significant contributions and it compares favourably with some of the best pension plans this country has to offer.

I went through a lot of the things that we have heard about today, in the military. I even endured a year in Victoria, learning French from the hon. member for Victoria. It was not much of a hardship, and I hope it worked a little bit.

I do support several measures that are in this motion. I will personally fight to get the VIP benefit extended. I will fight to get the spousal benefits extended. I support and will fight for the concept of a veterans ombudsman.

However, and this is my own pension I am talking about, I cannot honestly support getting something for myself, or anybody else, that I have not paid for, and that is simply what we are talking about.

The emotional arguments are valid. I have been there. I have hundreds, at least, of friends who have been there. I understand it better than most. But it simply does not cut it. I cannot expect to get something that I have not paid for.

Many people I talk to, former chiefs of defence staff, former senior officers, down to junior officers, who sit down, put aside the emotion, and look at the cold hard facts have to agree. As much sacrifice the members of the military and the RCMP make, we cannot expect to get something that we just flat have not paid for. As I said, I was proud to serve and honoured to serve, and I was well compensated for that before and since.

It pains me to have to say that because I know I have friends watching who are saying, “Hawnski, what are you doing? You're deserting us”. I would love to get more money. I am sorry. I referred to myself as Hawnski, I should have said “Youski, you're deserting us”.

I would love to get more money, but I cannot, with a sense of honesty and integrity, stand here and say, “Please give me something that I haven't earned”, no matter what I have gone through. I just cannot do that. To many of my friends who are watching, I am sorry, but my sense of honesty and integrity will not allow that. It does pain me because I would love to have more money, as we all would.

I will say again, there are many things that I support in this motion, and I have the utmost respect for my hon. colleague, who is very active in veterans affairs and military affairs, as am I. There are many things that I will support, but the one aspect, the aspect of getting something that we have not paid for, that, I am sorry, I just cannot. I am taking money out of my own pocket to say that, but that is the right answer.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's remarks and I want to take him to task for something he said early on. He said, “the Conservatives believe in war”. What a ridiculous statement. We do not believe in war. I do not believe in war. I spent 30 years prepared to fight a war because I hate war.

What we believe in is protecting people who cannot protect themselves. What we believe in is standing up against tyranny. What we believe in is protecting women and children. What we believe in is putting down dictators.

We do not hate war. We hate the people who make war on those who cannot defend themselves.

This member and this party, and I think every member in the House, will agree, as every freedom loving person in the world who has the courage to stand up to it will agree, we do not hate war.

I will quote Mark Twain in 1912 when he was considering running for the presidency of the United States. He said, “It's a fine thing to defend one's own freedom. It's a damn sight finer thing to defend somebody else's”.

I would simply ask my hon. friend to reconsider that ridiculous comment.

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I share in my colleague's remarks about the value of veterans and what they have given the country.

People who know me know that I am an emotional person and I respond to emotion. All the emotional things that go with being in the military and all of the sacrifices that we have talked about today are very real, but there is also a practical side to me and I think there has to be a practical side to what we do as well.

I ask the hon. member, whether the number is $20 billion, $40 billion or whatever the number is that we can argue about, is there a practical limit to the amount of dollars the hon. member would suggest that the Government of Canada spend to compensate somebody, strictly financially speaking, for what they have not paid for for 40 years, multiplied by tens of thousands?

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will be rising a few times today because I can speak to this issue with some authority.

I know my NDP colleague and her party care about people as individuals but, at the risk of sounding unkind, I would point out that if they had cared in the past about people in the military like they care about them now they would not have obstructed military spending as much as they have historically.

However, I do strongly support a couple of items in this motion, one being the VIP spousal benefits, because, frankly, anybody who gold digs for a military pension does not understand mathematics.

Somebody mentioned that more research resources were available to the government than to the opposition to come up with figures to cost out some of the programs that we are talking about, and there was some disbelief at the figures that my hon. Conservative colleague mentioned. However, I would point out that those resources are the same for the opposition as they are for us, and it is called the Library of Parliament. Why would they not go get accurate numbers? Is it because the answer is inconvenient?

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, we can always come up with examples, and I do not deny the example that my hon. friend from Sackville—Eastern Shore mentioned. Part of people getting benefits of course is getting good advice before they get them, and in a lot of cases people do not do that.

However, I want to go back to something the previous speaker had talked about regarding retroactivity. We are not talking about retroactivity here. I am sure that the most recent speaker can probably answer this because obviously we all talk among ourselves.

I am going to be 60 in a few months. My CPP will cut in at 65. If it is not retroactive, then what the heck is wrong with me? Darn it, I earned it like anybody else, according to the emotional arguments that have been put forth, which are great emotional arguments and I can identify with them, as I said. We are talking about retroactivity because if we are going to do that, we cannot ignore that.

I would like the hon. member to respond to that. If it is not retroactive, when does this start? What date and with whom, and who is left out?

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I will say in English what I said in French to a previous question. Nobody in the House, save perhaps one, can identify more personally with these issues. I am one of the veterans about whom the hon. member talks. I know many of those people who live in paradise, in Comox. It is a wonderful place to be and I visit it as often as I can.

I agree with most of the things in the motion, but I will keep coming back to the issue of the pension. The member said it best when she referred to one of the letters from a retiree. He wants to collect what he invested in. I am talking about the pension, too. Would I love more money? Of course I would, but I invested in a pension that was made up partly of a contribution to the Canadian Forces superannuation and partly of contributions to the Canada pension. When the pension plan changed in 1966, my contribution to my pension, to the CFA, went down by the amount of my contribution to Canada pension.

I am now collecting everything that I paid in. When I turn 65, I will continue to collect, “ what I invested in”. As emotional as the arguments are and as wonderful as the military people are, and I take personal pride in that, the emotional arguments, unfortunately, do not cut it when it comes down to actual dollars.

Does my hon. friend have any idea of the cost of making up 40 years of paying out something that people like me did not pay into?

[Business of Supply, November 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, no one in this House, with one exception, can identify more personally than I do with these issues, and I am in agreement with many of the points of this motion.

On the subject of military pensions, I was there when the system was changed because of the introduction of the Canada Pension Plan.

I have a question for my hon. colleague.

We have talked a lot about a so-called clawback or perceived clawback of pensions. Is my hon. colleague aware that in 1966 when Canada pension was merged with the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, and as I said, I was there when it happened, the pension deductions for CFSA went down by the amount of Canada pension deductions that were added?

If we were to allow the member to collect both pensions in full, how would we redress 40 years of pension contributions not made that now are expected to be paid?